The 1999 amendments to ORS 144.335(3) did not alter the requirement of providing a substantial reason, under the substantial evidence review standard of scrutiny the Board of Parole is subjected to, for postponing the release of prison inmates.

Defendant appeals the decision of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision to delay his release from prison. In 1980 defendant was convicted of many crimes including rape, sodomy, kidnapping and several others. After a psychological interview in 2008, it was determined that Defendant should remain in prison for an additional 24 months in accordance with ORS 144.125(3). This decision was arrived at due to Defendant having antisocial personality disorder and being likely to commit further crimes if released. Defendant appealed the decision. The Court of Appeals determined that, in accordance with ORS 144.335(3), there was a “substantial reason” necessary in deferring release from prison and that, in the instant case, there was not a substantial reason provided to Defendant, but rather a mere conclusion. The Court determined that, despite the 1999 amendment to ORS 144.335(3), the statute required a substantial evidence-based reason to be presented in denying a prisoner’s delay in prison release. Additionally, the Court found that Defendant was provided with an adequate reason that satisfies that statute and also was provided a detailed writing describing that decision in accordance with ORS 144.135. Because the decision cited the statute and rule it was made in accordance with and relevant facts that informed the decision. Court of Appeals reversed, Board of Parole decision affirmed.